Blair’s Iraq War created the precedent that allows Cameron and co to get away with doing nothing

The Royal Prerogative was, in effect, abolished on the basis of a PR campaign that required Parliamentary consent to establish legitimacy for going to war, and Iraqi minorities are paying the price

I don’t know what we should do about ISIS (I refuse to call them ‘Islamic State’ – they are, as Nigel Fletcher has pointed out, neither of these things). I know that we could assist the US in producing a more favourable ground war for the Kurds, Christians, Shiite militias and others braving resistance against this tide of barbarism. I know that we could offer refuge to religious minorities fleeing – in particular, because they have nowhere else to go and because we are a Christian country in heritage at least, to Iraqi and Syrian Christians. I know that we could provide troops to help shore up the defences of innocents and that we could equip our friends in the region with the kind of military technology that we have, inadvertently, allowed ISIS to capture and to use. What I do know, though, is that it is unsustainable to sit and to watch.

As Pope Francis said, when asked whether he would support action against ISIS, “It is licit to stop the unjust aggressor … I say stop. I do not say bomb, make war, I say stop by some means. With what means can they be stopped? These have to be evaluated. To stop the unjust aggressor is licit.”

This point is hammered home with brutal clarity by the murder of US journalist James Foley. I have not watched the video; I would urge you not to either. To do so would be to join ISIS in turning one man’s lonely and uncalled for death into a geopolitical plaything, a stunt. But we now know – as if there were ever any real doubt – the true extent of ISIS’s evil ambitions. They won’t rest at genocide in their own lands. They won’t stop when they reach the borders of Iraq. They will come for us as surely as they came for Foley. If the people of Britain felt able to ignore the plight of Christian, Yazidi and Shiite victims in far-off lands – and, to our credit, polling shows that many of us do not – we cannot ignore the direct threat to our own safety that ISIS’s expansion poses. This murder is significant because it demonstrates that no-one will ever be safe. Yes, Foley was in Syria. But his killing was directed at us, here. It was an act of theatre, macabre but meaningful.

And what do our politicians intend to do about it? Who knows? David Cameron sweeps up the road from his holidays in Cornwall (not that one begrudges him a break) to meet with Cobra. Ed Miliband tweets vague messages of support for “combatting the threat of ISIS”. What that means is, really, anybody’s guess. The spectacle of Philip Hammond on the Today Programme outlining all the things Britain “could” do – without ever committing to any of the options he outlines – is a demonstration of the strange paralysis that appears to exist at the highest levels of Government. Politics has become enfeebled when it comes to foreign policy – to the serious, weighty questions of war and peace, we are adrift.

It is, in some ways, Tony Blair’s fault. Not because of Iraq in the conventional sense. I understand why we helped to defeat Saddam Hussein. And I supported it then for reasons of basic morality that I continue to believe relevant and justified. But Tony Blair’s handling of the build up to that war continues to have a haunting, emasculating effect on our current leaders – it is a toxic hangover that exerts a tremendous, physical effect on Britain’s politicians. Blair’s desperation to get his way on Iraq led him to establish a new and wholly invented precedent – giving Parliament a previously non-existent right to vote prior to action in a foreign land.

The Royal Prerogative was, in effect, abolished on the basis of a PR campaign that required Parliamentary consent to establish legitimacy. Of course, the law didn’t change. But Britain is run more on convention than on constitution and it is difficult to imagine a Prime Minister now ignoring Blair’s convenient innovation. And so David Cameron went to Parliament last Summer and asked for its consent in tackling Bashir Assad’s brutal oppression of his people. They declined him his writ and we sat on our hands – with Cameron and his inner circle bitter at Ed Miliband’s perceived betrayal and permanently blocked from action. That decision was fateful. It left a vacuum that ISIS was perfectly placed to fill. We, the west, were not coming to help. But Al Qaeda’s even-more-evil twin was. And so the fate of Iraqi and Syrian Christians was sealed by our inaction and by the newfound timidity – born of an absurd and cynical invented convention – which has left the Arab world to the mercy of its ugliest side.

We have a choice to make as a country. We can look away for now and reap the consequences later – even whilst knowing that our brothers and sisters in the Middle East have no such option to delay. Or we can confront the evil that stares us in the face and murders our people. I would rather we did the latter. As I say, I don’t know what we should do, in what order or at what velocity – but I do (and I realise how glib this might sound) believe we must do something. I also know that there are others who – mostly with good intentions – do not believe we can or that we should even try. What is important now – because we live in the world, and the constitution, that Blair created – is that a debate is held. Parliament must be recalled. Lord Dannatt – the former head of Britain’s armed services – was surely right when he said “Parliament needs to come back together, people need to have a full debate about it and express their point of view. I think the nation would expect that. Everyone has private points of view, I think they need to be aired publicly.”

Parliament must decide whether a mandate to act is to be granted to the British state. And then – whatever the outcome – they must be held accountable.

All I would say to our honourable men and women is that they should remember – when eventually they get the chance to vote – that it is not just their constituents who will be watching, remembering. It is many hundreds of thousands of innocent victims. It is the families of those upon whom horrors have been perpetrated and those who face horrors to come. It is MPs’ own children and grandchildren who, if nothing is done, will live in a world where ISIS has morphed into a rich, powerful state. And, for those who believe, it is their God – who cannot, whatever faith they are of, wish these crimes to go unpunished and their victims unaided.

COMMENT POLICY

The Catholic Herald comment guidelinesAt The Catholic Herald we want our articles to provoke spirited and lively debate. We also want to ensure the discussions hosted on our website are carried out in civil terms.All commenters are therefore politely asked to ensure that their posts respond directly to points raised in the particular article or by fellow contributors, and that all responses are respectful.We implement a strict moderation policy and reserve the right to delete comments that we believe contravene our guidelines. Here are a few key things to bear in mind when commenting…

•Do not make personal attacks on writers or fellow commenters – respond only to their arguments.•Comments that are deemed offensive, aggressive or off topic will be deleted.•Unsubstantiated claims and accusations about individuals or organisations will be deleted.•Keep comments concise. Comments of great length may be deleted.•We try to vet every comment, however if you would like to alert us to a particular posting please use the ‘Report’ button.Thank you for your co-operation,The Catholic Herald editorial team

Comments

Comment Policy

At The Catholic Herald we want our articles to provoke spirited and lively debate. We also want to ensure the discussions hosted on our website are carried out in civil terms.

All commenters are therefore politely asked to ensure that their posts respond directly to points raised in the particular article or by fellow contributors, and that all responses are respectful.

Anon

For once a headline in the Catholic Herald to which nothing much needs to be added.

Obama apparently, two years into his second term, is on permanent holiday and doesn’t want his golf disturbed by Christians being beheaded or by the incipient invasion of Ukraine and the re-establishment of the USSR.

As for Cameron – my God! He refuses calls to return from holiday when hundreds of thousands of Catholics are being chased from their homes and murdered in cold blood by an army of death-loving madmen crazed by their false religion, but returns immediately when it’s known an Islamic nutter with a British passport has hacked off the head of an American. And on that subject, may God give eternal rest to the soul of poor James Foley.

Our politicians are a bunch of lilly-livered lick-spittles whose consciences do not exist and whose interest is only piqued by the ‘economy’. For me, Bush Jr. at least has some principles (unlike Blair who has none that I can see beyond the attainment and retention of power).

The lot we all have now? I despise every single last one of them.

Acleron

The vote against intervention in Syria was because of Blair’s illegal war but not for the reason given, it was because parliament were given incorrect information, voted for violence and the result was an increase in the misery suffered by Iraqis including this latest assault on them. This time we had better have evidence for the reason for any action, evidence that we keep to our actions and evidence that any action leads to a better outcome. The first certainly appears to be fulfilled. The second would rely on the honesty of our leaders and is under severe doubt. The third is demonstrably unfulfilled. Cameron speaks of defeating ISIS. This is impossible and action by us may make them stronger. ISIS itself grew from Bush/Blair’s war on terrorism, it didn’t work. And there is a final point, it is easy for us armchair warriors, including Dannatt to demand action but it is others who will be sent and suffer injury and death. I can see the point of air cover by our modern jets, drones and cruise missiles for the Iraqi troops and Peshmerger, but occupying Iraq again, no.

sclerotic

“I know that we could assist the US in producing a more favourable ground war for the Kurds, Christians, Shiite militias”. Which Shiite milita? Al-Maliki’s (Shiite) Iraq army? Bani-Sadr? ISIS is at loggerheads with Al-Quaeda, not to mention the Military Council of the Tribes of Iraq (at least seventy tribes and counting), and then there’s the Army of the Men of the Naqshbandi Order, Baathist to some degree but claiming Sunni and Kurdish support or perhaps we swing our weight round Ansar al-Islam though they are a bit extremist but they don’t much care for ISIS either. I suggest you find a correspondent who knows their way round the Middle East a bit better before sounding off about the US President and the UK PM and their reluctance to put grunts on the (shifting) ground.

John Morrison

Yes you English should do something and unlike Obama don’t dilly daly but get on with it.THe Iraq invasion was not justified.Ben Laden could and should have been taken alive.You sowed the wind Sykes – Picot ,now reap the world wind.You have many atrocities to atone for.SpuyneKopje, Amritsatr Croke park Dublin 1920 Black and Tan War,the shooting down of the Irish airliner, the terror bombing of Germany.The coverup of Katyn massacre, the sell out of Poland at Yalta with FDR
t Yalta.
tAWAR
+

MEENA999

IS/ISIL is the rapidly grown baby and Tony B and G Dubya B are its parents.
We surely don’t want to give it a sibling, or to feed it more, so that it becomes even stronger.

There was a time, in the recent past, when millions of people, including millions of Christians, were kept in slavery by another cruel faux-religion. During a long period many lives were also taken. Some of the people rebelled against the wicked regimes and their rebellions were put down by force – they asked for help from the West, but no military assistance was ever given.
We recognised then, that if we did intervene with troops and weapons, it would be dangerous, and unlikely to afford benefit to anyone,

Tony and G D’ thought, wrongly, that Iraq would be a push-over. There again seems to be an opinion growing that we can move in once more – and put matters to “rights”.

Scyptical Chymist

While sharing your low opinion of the politicians mentioned I don’t think they should take all the blame. ISIS is merely the normal expression of Islam returning to its fundamentals which occurs from time to time, B and B certainly opened the door for them but it was inevitable there would be an outbreak sooner or later. The world needs to wake up. Where are today’s Sobieski and Knights of St John?

MEENA999

There seems no recognition here that there has been a fundamental change in Islamic expansionist policy since the days of 9/11 and the other attacks and attempted attacks on the West (mainly the UK and the US) and the present (and recent) past.

The chief of MI6 at the time of the Iraqi invasion (now Master of Pembroke College) made this clear recently – as reported by all the grown-up press. This is, without doubt, the view of western intelligence services now.

There is a good article in today’s Guardian which, like Sir Richard Dearwood, seeks to explain this.
See short quote and link to the article:

” A third shift is tactical. For a decade, from the mid-1990s, the “farenemy” (the west) was the priority target, at least in theory. Osama Bin Laden’s aim was to radicalise and mobilise through spectacular violence – “propaganda by deed” – to prompt a global uprising among the world’s Muslims against unbelievers.

“This is not the aim of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, leader of Islamic State (IS), nor of many of the other militants active around the world today. Only al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, the group closest to the old al-Qaida leadership, still doggedly launch successive attempts to attack US interests, or even “the homeland” itself. Only 1% of attacks between 2010 and 2013, the Rand Corporation thinktank said in a recent report, were international.”

[Cameron’s talk is pure party political vote-fishing: The Conservative party is widely (and wrongly) seen by many as the party that will “stand firm” (with military might) against threats (even imaginary ones) to Queen and Country (don’t mention the massive cuts in manpower and equipment in the armed forces!). Although the threats from IS to the UK are purely imaginary (MI6 will have told him this), they suit his purpose and message: vote Tory and save us from IS. ]

Alan40

And no doubt the “English” were also responsible for the Black Death, the Great Flood, and anything else you can think of.
What an absurd hotchpotch of unrelated and irrelevant events! The current state of Iraq results from a whole sequence of events over the last century, involving many countries (not just “England”, as you quaintly call the UK). You clearly have some chips on your shoulder.

Anon

Meena says that IS is the child of Bush and Blair. Whilst I despise the latter, and have no great love for the former, she forgets Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and the UAE. The problem is the Gulf Arabs: unreconstructed savages in my book. And yes, I do have personal experience of them whose surface piety is matched only by their boundless immorality and capacity to lie.

Jacobi

Yes we have a dilemma.

We in the West can’t just look away, but equally Western public opinion will not tolerate a steady loss of soldier’s lives in combating these barbaric Islamic fundamentalist (albeit orthodox) Muslims, and the barbarians know it!

There is s a clear alternative. Boots on the ground are necessary but these can be of the local communities under threat. A policy of training and equipping militias, for example amongst the Christian communities, so that their young men can defend their own people,
backed by air strikes from USA/NATO, would work . I am sure there would be no shortage of volunteers from our young Christian men

This will take time. The militias must be properly led, trained and equipped with appropriate heavy weaponry and communication equipment. Something like this worked well in the Lebanon in the 1970s war.

We, and the Christian communities in the Middle East and Africa, really must shake off this false meekness, this relying helplessly on others for protection which has been the bane of recent conflicts and massacres.

And, this is fully in line with orthodox Catholic thinking on just warfare.

Acleron

There is no doubt that the richer Islamic states in the ME support the savagery of their own cults. Saudi sends books to the Madrassas in the UK advocating death to homosexuals etc. The tyrant Hussein recognised this as does Assad now and kept them in check with a slightly more intelligent application of power than possessed by the Western leaders, toppling them causes those forces to gain power. Meena is correct in this, Bush and Blair caused the environment for the creation of ISIS and for the basest of reasons. We have enough historical examples that given an uneducated population trained to believe in nonsense, create great misery and then give them a cause. They will ferociously fight to protect the nonsense rather than take action to alleviate their suffering.

Atilla The Possum

AMEN!
… and the silence from Muslims to condemn these crazies is deafening!

MEENA999

The populations of the states you cite are religious fundamentalists.
These states have largely not enjoyed the benefits of an enlightenment and the
minds of many remain firmly embedded in ancient teachings, not very much younger than those of Christianity.
Christianity has mellowed during recent centuries in the face of the enlightenment and better-educated populations and slowly continues to do so; it is much the better for this – although there are pockets that remain entrenched in some of the worst of the old ways.
In 1995 Christian Bosnian Serb forces cold-bloodily massacred thousands of Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica.

MEENA999

So “boots on the ground” and US, UK (i.e. NATO) air strikes (sounds a bit like jolly football). This was done before IS or ISIL existed.

Anon

Isn’t it an appalling irony that when the West is faced with a bone fide enemy (and Islamic State IS our sworn enemy) our capacity to act is paralysed by our low moral standing following he of the “Faith Foundation” (!) and George Dubyah’s soiree in the region some years ago when we didn’t actually have a bone fide enemy in the region.

In fact, we have expended virtually all the moral force we deservedly held from winning two World Wars against firstly an authoritarian and then a tyrannical regime. And liberalism is to blame.

Air power cannot win wars on its own: look at Libya for goodness sake, the latest example of our interference provoking a disaster. Without sending troops into battle there in Iraq, we have no chance of stopping IS doing anything. And more – which this article doesn’t mention. IS is close to wiping out the other anti-Assad forces in northern Syria. IS soon will threaten Aleppo. That, said a British diplomat in the region, will be “the sum of all our worst fears”.

We have to arm Assad and help him in every way take on and beat IS. Are our Dave or the Golfer ready for that? Why has the Anglo-Saxon world lost its statesmanship, its leadership, its clear sight? Because our leaders genuinely appear to believe that the imposition of democracy can actually work in Islamic countries. It cannot. It is inimical to the beliefs and cultures of these people.

We should be happy that a strongman like Assad exists. If he didn’t, we would have to invent him, malodorous as he is.

Anon

If you think Islam and the Koran (the dictated word of their god) are susceptible to an “Enlightenment”, you are extremely mistaken Meena. You quote Locke and Hobbes at them when they arrive on your doorstep and see if the sword goes back into the scabbard. It won’t.

Anon

That’s alright then Meena. As long as IS conduct their savagery on people far away from us, because they have enemies closer to them, we can sit back and do nowt.

Remind me not to have you in charge of the defence of this nation.

Anon

Saudi and Qatari money. Stop just blaming Western leaders (who have indeed made things worse).

Your posting history is very pro-Arab altogether. Another fad of your self-absorbed liberal set?

Jacobi

No.

What I am suggesting is quite different. Before the “boots” were USA etc. I am suggesting the boots be those of young Christian men suitably organised trained and led to look after themselve and not just be pawns in the terror game of these barbaric Muslim fighters. ISIS is resurgent because they effectively defeated “American boots” That would not be an option for Christian militias!

Yes, perhaps some will get killed, there’s nothing jolly about it, but then they already are, and in a brutal and humiliating way.

After all its their land. They were there for six centuries before Islam arrived!

MEENA999

So a pure holy war; Christians versus Muslims.
This is something that could really have an impact on the UK and elsewhere in the West.

This would be a 21st century Crusade — nothing less.
I can see Michael Voris on his charger (“Vortex”) riding into battle, twirling his pencil (or maybe he’d prefer to stay on his movie set).

Acleron

Pro-Arab? What is the bias in pointing out facts? Are facts the province of only the liberal set? Yes, many are to blame for the chaos in the ME. But the Western leaders have continually interfered in the area for at least a century. The result is what we have now and that includes the barbarous regimes in Saudi and Qatar. It is about time we admitted to ourselves that interfering doesn’t work. Even when faced with the religious terrorism of ISIS we can again make the situation worse by supporting the Shias who will exact their revenge on the Sunnis. Humanitarian aid should be our aim to all those people and support general education outside the indoctrination schools to give everyone the tools to decide on their own futures.

Acleron

The boots were sent by two leaders who thought they were guided by your god. Well that hasn’t ended well.

Acleron

The only ‘moral’ force the UK and the USA had was self ascribed.

A moral dilemma is apparent on who to support in Syria. The tyrant or the rebels including the religious thugs? Deciding to support one or the other does not solve that conundrum. The calculus has to involve less of our requirements and more over what results in the least suffering of the people.

You are quite correct that imposing democracy from without hasn’t worked. There has to be other factors in place before democracy forms. The only times when democracy has been imposed is by close armed occupation as in India. This will be rejected in the ME because we have never had any real morality in the region.

Yes, at the beginning, support of Assad would have led to fewer deaths but that genie has already escaped the bottle. However, I wouldn’t have said we should ever be happy about him.

Jonathan West

I don’t know what we should do about ISIS

In that case, the best course of action is probably to do nothing until you do know what to do.

It is, in some ways, Tony Blair’s fault. Not because of Iraq in the conventional sense. I understand why we helped to defeat Saddam Hussein. And I supported it then for reasons of basic morality that I continue to believe relevant and justified. But Tony Blair’s handling of the build up to that war continues to have a haunting, emasculating effect on our current leaders – it is a toxic hangover that exerts a tremendous, physical effect on Britain’s politicians. Blair’s desperation to get his way on Iraq led him to establish a new and wholly invented precedent – giving Parliament a previously non-existent right to vote prior to action in a foreign land.

And giving Parliament that right is bad for what reason?

Jacobi

Not so.

They were guided by the the Oil God. However recently with the easing of various restrictions, that God has collapsed. We probably now have an excess of oil.

Our leaders are beginning to realise where the real enemy lies and how better to counter it.

andHarry

‘And, this is fully in line with orthodox Catholic thinking on just warfare.’

Pope Francis seems to have a problem with this.

Acleron

Without a doubt us English have a lot to be historically and concurrently ashamed of. I wish we had a different past but a) we haven’t and b) I am not personally ashamed at all, I didn’t do any of it. But let us not have anything we can all be ashamed of by supporting the jingoistic and warmongering sentiments expressed in this article which is to send in our young to be injured, die and kill with no clear reason to do so except the vague wish of doing something.

Acleron

Bush’s principles were clear, obey whichever del!usion about a god he had been given and make as much money for himself and his mates as possible. His competence was, as we found out, very low and his intelligence borders on the disabled side.

Jacobi

Not at all.

The Holy Father and I, both being good orthodox Catholics, have the same views on matters of Faith and Morals, binding ion the whole Church – but not necessarily on other matters.

As he said on the aeroplane,

“In these
cases where there is an unjust aggression, I can only say that it is licit
to stop the unjust aggressor.

and

“ To
stop the unjust aggressor is licit”. So stopping aggression with properly trained Christian militias is quite appropriate and in line with orthodox Catholic thinking as explored by Augustine and Aquinas

Jacobi

I already posted back but it seems to have gone missing. It was to the effect that “when will people realise that a holy war is exactly what we have been engaged in for the last 14 centuries i.e., Islam against all other religions and Christianity in particular”.
Also Voris while excellent at expressing good orthodox Catholic teaching is already a bit old for charging about on horse.
We should leave all that to younger local Christians.

andHarry

He said ” I do not say bomb, make war, I say stop by some means.”

So he does not advise war. The ‘just war’ is war. He seems rather lost on how to stem this aggression. Of course he is not alone on that.

Jacobi

No.
He does not specify war.

Jacobi

Sorry. Interrupted, had to set table early as it’s bridge night.

He did not specify war he specified that the murdering had
to be stopped. Now that could mean asking ISIS politely to desist, but it’s more likely to end up with more appropriate force, and that could well mean bombing, or better still, the use of say Bolt -117 precision weapons backed up by local boots on the ground. In this particular
case the necessity for prompt action given the daily rate at which prisoners and hostages can be murdered, is paramount.

I wondered how long it would be before someone brought up that old chestnut in a desperate attempt to show that Christians are ‘just as bad’. You really had to dig for an example though didn’t you. Where else are Christians (in the explicit name of their faith, not nationalism) killing Muslims or others?What happened in Bosnia was horrific – I know, I was there – but you are scraping the bottom of the barrel in an attempt to demonstrate equivalence. Let’s just face it, this is a problem coming directly from the very heart of the Islamic religion.

andHarry

‘War as such, that is formal war might well come later.’

War whether formal or informal is forbidden. Jesus(Matthew 5:39) said, ”Resist not evil.” Also if the prisoners and hostages are truly Christian there is really no problem. Killing unbelievers is a different matter since they will be lost forever. Perhaps when pondering whether there would be any believers left when He returned was the question ”How many of you will have given your lives for Christ’s sake?” – rather than whether nearly all had deserted Him. Be positive for Christ – turn the other cheek.

MEENA999

So it’s an “old chestnut” for you? Not that old, surely.

But if you read my comment I actually quoted this event because it was rare in modern times. I was at pains to stress the fact that Christianity had (necessarily) mellowed in fairly recent times as a consequence of a number of factors such as the enlightenment and provision of education to larger numbers of people.

Centuries ago Christianity was sometimes preserved (and kept “pure”) with violence and even wars.
So I’m essentially agreeing with you that “this is a problem coming directly from the very heart of the Islamic religion” – although I would myself say “……..from the very heart of a fundamentalist interpretation of the Islamic religion” that has not evolved and mellowed in the dawning lights of reason and rationality (as has Christianity).

Jacobi

An interesting approach. I’m no theologian but I’m sure there is a word for it. Something to do with the Council of Perfection to which we must all aspire but since we are Fallen Creatures, will never attain. (Mark you it didn’t do St Augustine’s successors much good
when the fierce Muslim horsemen swept through that great North African Catholic civilisation in the seventh century and erased it without trace!)

For instance, I assume you still have your right eye and hand? And there are those who assiduously visit the sick, but would rather keep away from the imprisoned?

I have no personal opinion on war, I simply reflect that of the Catholic Church, which has a carefully established position based on the work of Augustine and Aquinas. The right of war is an example of a right of moral coercion which every “perfect” right carries.

Yes, there are very strict conditions necessary for a just war, (CCC2309), but equally, proper authority not only has a duty to pursue a just war but also to ensure on all the obligation of contributing to such, i.e., the obligation for instance of military service. In my case that could involve a re-call to the colours, but since I finished my National Service, during the Cold War in 1959, that is unlikely.

Now as always, we are beginning to go round in circles trying
to get a squirt in, so I will break away and leave the last word to you.

Well, someday, the West will be forced to realize that Islam is the enemy, not only of Christianity, but of all civilization. Reading these posts, it isn’t going to be soon. One supposes it will be like the rise of the Nazis, ignored until the bombs went off in our cities. Really, stop blaming Bush and Blair. They aren’t beheading Christians, Buddhists, Bahaists, Hindus, etc. Stop the “It’s all the fault of the West”. How many decapitated people, including babies, and how many massacres of unarmed Christians, do we have to see, before you realize that Islam is our deadly enemy? They have made it clear to the world, anyone who isn’t Muslim must convert or face death. How long do we have to listen to his farcical pandering of the left, that somehow, it’s all our fault? If you haven’t understood, let it be plain. You can be an apologist for Islam, but if you aren’t a Muslim, regardless of all your good intentioned propaganda for Islam, they will threaten you with death, if you don’t convert.